Stanford Social Innovation Review : Informing and inspiring leaders of social change

SUBSCRIBE | HELP

Technology & Design

The New Digital Divide

New levels of data-filtering, along with the growth of social networks that aggregate like-minded souls, are threatening civic engagement—and other assertions made at the Personal Democracy Forum.

Call it the New Digital Divide. In the early days of the Web, social innovation leaders predicted it would spawn a more open and democratic society. Today, though, that hope is being strongly challenged.

According to Eli Pariser, a cofounder and former Executive Director of MoveOn.org, data aggregators like Google have started using increasingly sophisticated filters to decide what information we consume online—and these new levels of data-filtering, along with the growth of social networks that aggregate like-minded souls—are threatening civic engagement. The filtering, he told people attending this week’s Personal Democracy Forum in Manhattan, is starting to keep us from being exposed to a fast-growing amount of information and ideas—and chiefly, viewpoints that may differ from our own.

For example, Pariser says, Google now uses 57 different personalization filters to customize what we see on the Web, even if we aren’t logged in. That makes it harder for us to see news and information that Google’s algorithms suggest might bore us or upset us. And that’s not all, says Pariser. Often these “filter bubbles” are keeping information from us without our specific permission—or worse, without our knowledge. Facebook also customizes content, using information on the links people click to customize the news that appears in their personal feed. [Pariser, a progressive, says he has tried hard to add conservatives to his Facebook feed but their feeds and links keep getting blocked from his page by Facebook’s personalization algorithms.]

“What you see on your screen may be very different from what the person sitting next to you sees,” Pariser told the gathering of more than 600 social change advocates, social entrepreneurs and open-government activists. “...We really need to get away from that silly idea that (computer) code doesn’t care about anything.”

To be sure, data segmentation isn’t new. But these new filter bubbles differ from what we’ve seen before, and in three ways, Pariser says. First, the degree of personalization is higher. You’re no longer simply being grouped with a bunch of people who read The Nation. The personalization is more selective than that: you’re now alone in your bubble. Second, filter bubbles are invisible. You don’t realize they exist. And third, you don’t choose the filter. It chooses you. “As the face of curation of what we see and consume online changes from a person to a machine, we need to start questioning the values of these filtering devices and get the power back to make these decisions for ourselves,” Pariser says. “The filter bubble may be good for consumers but it’s bad for democracy.”

Other assertions made by presenters:

There is racial segregation on the Web, even among trending topics on Twitter. According to data visualization experts Fernanda Viegas and Martin Wattenberg, the thousands of hashtags being used to collate and segment different conversations by topic also may be keeping many people out of the short-messaging site’s most popular and/or important conversations. Example: Two of the top-trending topics over the recent Memorial Day weekend—#cookout and #oilspill—were starkly segmented along racial lines. Viegas said the #cookout conversation was attended mostly by blacks and #oilspill, mostly by whites during the same period. “Hashtags are the bumper stickers of the 21st Century,” said Wattenberg. Added Viegas: “On many topics, it’s a heterogeneous crowd, but there’s a whole other chunk of topics where race divides people. We need to be aware that even online, we can be immersing ourselves in conversations that are segregated in ways that might be worrisome.”

We are not using the social media tools we have to solve problems so much as we are using them to socialize with like-minded people about these problems. It’s time to get more active offline, said Clay Johnson, the director of Sunlight Labs and cofounder of the online political strategy firm, Blue State Digital. Social entrepreneurs and activists need to focus less on using social media to build email lists and focus more on getting people active offline solving social problems, he said. He cited the online social network, Momsrising.org, as a good example of a social network that is highly civically engaged, using government data on health, education and economic trends to create a “Moms Score” to help catalyze offline protests and social change.

We must work harder to break out of our self-imposed (or machine-imposed) comfort zones if we’re to affect social change. “We are too focused on climbing the hierarchy ladder in our workplaces and social networks online, and not focused enough on dismantling these hierarchies, which is where the true power lies,” said Deanna Zandt, a social media consultant and author of Share This! a book about social networking. “We’re living like fish right now,” she said. “We don’t know we’re wet. We’re taking our perception that the Net is a wonderful meritocracy but that’s not true. We need to interrupt this pattern of thinking immediately.” Zandt urged conferees to shatter their comfort zones to start making the Net a more hospitable place for civic engagement. “We have to work harder at civic engagement online,” she said. Zandt, who is white, shared her own experience of finding herself in an unexpected discussion on Twitter about race in America after she spoke out against an action last summer by Philadelphia’s Valley Club to ban black children from swimming in its pool. “This was completely outrageous, I got really angry about it and signed petitions and all of that, but what was more interesting was what happened in the days following that,” Zandt said. “People started sharing on Twitter about the first time they’d been discriminated against as children and this blew me away. I wouldn’t have found myself in a group of people of color, sharing stories about discrimination without Twitter” and without “stepping out.”

Stop enabling the status quo. John Perry Barlow, the founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a 20-year-old nonprofit digital rights advocacy group, told the gathering that he stands by his earlier statement, made many years ago, that “the Internet is the most powerful event since the capture of fire.” Its power cuts both ways. Barlow said there is massive power in the hands of individuals, thanks to the Web, but this is power that Establishment groups also can use to try to destabilize opposition. Most people, he said, still don’t know how to use the Web to organize and affect social change. But they are learning, he said. “We have to stop expecting the government to shower us with things it can no longer deliver,” he said, “and start running this country and our institutions (including companies) the same way the Internet is run, from the edges.”

What do you think? Does the surge of online social networks and corporate use of Net filters to segment consumers make it harder for people to engage civically with one another—in or out of the workplace? Let us hear from you.

Tracker Pixel for Entry
 

COMMENTS

  • BY Jeff Imparato

    ON June 4, 2010 08:17 AM

    Has anyone asked Fernanda Viegas and Martin Wattenberg where did they get their demographic information?  Twitter and Facebook do not ask socio-ethnic questions, so where does it come from?

  • BY marcia stepanek

    ON June 4, 2010 11:37 AM

    They conducted an analysis of 500 Tweeters participating in each hashtag group as part of their ongoing work with IBM and data visualization. They conducted this study over the Memorial Day weekend. They reported their results and methodology from the stage of PDF. They also reported interesting results based on gender, age, and political ideology. Please go to http://www.personaldemocracy.org to find the video of the proceedings, as well as the livestream, and thanks for reading!

  • BY John S. Ericksan, Ph.D.

    ON June 9, 2010 12:13 PM

    Thank you very much for this commentary, Marcia!

    I think your points are very consistent with what we’ve been hearing e.g. about online demographic participation from such varied sources as the great dana boyd of the Berkman Center or in regular stories on NPR’s “On The Media”: whereas the great potential for the Internet was more complete democratic participation and discourse, the reality has been the facilitation of micro-special-interests.

    This is sad, because I believe current and emerging social platforms implement the essential “tools” for community growth and development (see esp. the work of Peter Block) better than anything we’ve ever seen. Unfortunately, these tools are being used to build antagonistic and/or malicious communities, as much as or even more so than purpose-driven communities for the actual betterment of society…

  • BY marcia stepanek

    ON June 11, 2010 08:18 AM

    John - Thanks for your comment, but I also think these tools are starting to be used to build a new kind of consumer movement. As I reach the finish line on writing my new book, Swarms (out later this year), I’m finding ever-new research to support the claim that we’re at the intersection of chatter and action, and it won’t be long now for the Net to start moving further in both directions.

  • BY John R. Sedivy

    ON June 22, 2010 09:38 PM

    Interesting - I didn’t know about the Google filters and up until this point didn’t realize that information returned from a search varied based on the user conducting the search.

    I really appreciated your last two quotes from John Perry Barlow - “the Internet is the most powerful event since the capture of fire.” and “We have to stop expecting the government to shower us with things it can no longer deliver, ...and start running this country and our institutions (including companies) the same way the Internet is run, from the edges.”

    The Internet is really exciting in that it is truly a self-organizing system which is practically impossible to predict in it’s entirety. With talks of increased regulation and a potential “kill switch” my hope is that its potential is not stifled, as technology growth in other areas is limited by regulation and special interests. I am intrigued by Barlow’s notion of running our country and business like the Internet. When he states “from the edges” is this to infer a flat organization with minimal to no outside interference?

Leave a Comment

 
 
 
 
 

Please enter the word you see in the image below: